Terry Eagleton in conversation with Roger Scruton
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 09. 2012
- Want to join the debate? Check out the Intelligence Squared website to hear about future live events and podcasts: www.intelligencesquared.com
__________________________
This event took place at the Royal Institution on 13th September 2012.
For more events, visit www.intelligencesquared.com
I think it's *great* that these two, *polar opposites* in their politics, can maintain a civilised and respectful debate, this is so often lacking these days
100%
and history shows that the violent always sets everything ablaze
Ahhh! it's because they are truly intelligent and so they don't need to try and prove it
@@tulkas399 HH XXX zxx01
It's almost more miraculous.
Two true brilliant gentlemen, debating and disagreeing seriously with grace, humor, and respect. May they be contagious.
Oh shut the fuck up you prat
Retinend Well, that was meaningful.
And you misspelled your name:
R-e-t-a-r-d-e-d
If anyone needs to STFU it's you.
The marxist is a buffoon.
The capitalist is a dickwad.
Sir Roger Scruton, R.I.P. (1944-2020)
How sad!R.I.P.
🙏🏽✨
Good
An intelligent, insightful debate which, despite containing radically opposed opinions, was conducted with decorum and respect. One must be awed that in times of Trump and political correctness, such delightful conversations still take place.
I mean who would dare debate Roger Scruton. The man has an almost pure instinct for sticking to the argument, never swayed by cheap emotionality. Wish I had heard him in my younger days, the man is a genius.
Laughable comment. Scruton is a self loathing parvenu reactionary who despises, his working class background; an ersatz philosopher/intellectual and a intellectually challenged person's idea of an intelligent man, as you so aptly demonstrate.
@@daubreyjaneweirdsley Your emotional reaction betrays what you really think. She doth protest too much comes to mind.
@@daubreyjaneweirdsley The other-person's-idea trope is used almost exclusively by people attempting (and failing) to sound smart themselves.
If a person is very good at the logic he/she will sound very convectively no matter what position he/she takes. And this is wonderful because this is the sort of debate where the truth is being born. But the truth is ( maybe fortunately and maybe, unfortunately) is very subjective so that is why even in the comment section here we have people insulting either those who debated or their followers :)
@@daubreyjaneweirdsley By having derided @krileayn, you obscured the points that you might have been trying to make about Scruton. Of course, you might just have been blowing off steam and never intended to convince people of the merit of your position; if so, then have at him. As with pro-wrestling, a pile-driving comment is forgotten no sooner than it appears...about the time that it takes for us to swipe to the next comment on our phones. Pity, you never gave us the chance to know the depth or shallowness of your insights about Scruton.
Eagleton gives a very stimulating and witty lecture about Christianity at Yale U. called "Christinity: Fair or Foul". He criticizes Hitchens and Dawkins in ways I would not have expected from a Marxists. You might find it enjoyable. Cheers!
Thanks a lot dear. I'll find it after I watched this video.
If you check out his work, he's heavily influenced by Christianity, and his work on evil and Materialism (which you can read in his books On Evil and Materialism, which are bit direct titles) are heavily inspired by Aquinas and the Christian tradition. One can point out, Marx heavily admired religion and encouraged his wife to read Jewish texts but that's just conveniently forgotten by some people.
@@bigo0723 Even if you're an atheist, if you can't find value on the christian tradition, you're probably a fanatic.
@@wandersmann8765 And Eagleton is no Atheist, obviously
It is beautiful and enriching to disagree with grace and respect, a pity that we have only one of the two alive today. We need more of these!
We do indeed....where can we find them ???
I like Scruton, but the moderator, Hannah, is the true icing on the cake;
I think she must have been stoned.
Is that a young Ash Sarkar getting the last question in? Of course she had to give all that pre-amble only to respond to Scruton's answer by accusing him of "only listening to music made by dead white men". What an embarrassment.
I was looking for this comment :)
way to ruin a great debate
Yup, standard Sarkar, even when younger, arrogant and overly antagonist about white people.
"Let's assume there is some truth in what you're saying" LOL
I'm a huge Eagleton fan which made this so fun to watch; I've never seen him get bopped on the head with such incisive wit. What a show!
Yes a great show. Roger was witty, sharp, but incisive? I felt he seemed to use cheap 'get out of jail' laughs, rather than engage Eagleton on ideas.
This is such a wonderfully English debate, punctuated by praise and 'if I may say so'. Gents.
The leftist is not a gent. He hogs the floor - for our own listening pleasure?
@@bdff4007 If I may so, you're an arse.
They're both for the decomodification of culture, which is huge.
Two M if you want to pass for cultured...
Thank you for sharing. Sir Roger is a joy to listen to - he is, perhaps, our leading philosopher of aesthetics, after all. Terry Eagleton is interesting too.
"Our". If it is your "leader", perhaps you should listen to him in a more attentive way. He even says in this very debate, that you cannot just project your individual or mere group perspective to an universal that far exceeds your particularities and prejudices.
Roger is once again brilliant here. Terry, I'm not so familiar with, but he reminds me of the Mole from Wind in the Willows.
+rob poynter www.comp.dit.ie/dgordon/League/OtherLeagues/Singular/Moreau/pic-MrMole.jpg
Too true!
That's him!
+rob poynter
Scruton gives the appearance of your classic Ivory Tower Capitalist philosopher. His contention that the universities have been given over to socialism would bemuse, to say the least, the two professors of my acquaintance. It would also - given the almost complete absorption of the neo-liberal ethos by society in general over the last thirty-five years - be quite improbable.
On a personal note, I find Scruton's continual habit of playing to the gallery quite annoying.
+rob poynter
>the mole
I lol ed
+Anthony Matthews Bernie sanders, amirite?
That last girl who accused Roger of only listening to the music created by 'dead white men' is quite spectacularly rude and ignorant.
I wish someone had put to her: in what circumstances would she consider it remotely acceptable to turn up to a discussion between two philosophers and sneer at a culture of "dead black men"?
Well, but black men have been for centuries dehumanised by those who lord it over them.
I liked Scruton's "that's what you've been taught to say" and his "cliche" jab.
Yes she was not just spectacularly rude, but also racist and sexist, and downright ignorant. That someone is 'dead' does not in any way diminish the work they have left behind. Let's just say for example we didn't pay any attention to the works of scientist Nikola Tesla because he is 'dead' - then we'd miss out on the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. This girl was clearly seeking an opportunity to take a racist stab at the 'white male' speakers - as can be seen by the way she slipped her remark in hurriedly and clumsily. However Scruton responded with dignity and was not phased in the slightest.
The Canuck Woodsman Much of classical musiic is extremely depressing as it was based on the horrid Catholicism. RS Is still stuck to the conventional view of the superiority of Western culture, a self-serving colonial myth that has passed its sell-by date.
+Kay Em "depressing" don't make me laugh, being melancholic doesn't mean "depressing", not to mention the fact that they are not the majority as you try to make it out to be. Western high culture is superior to whatever bollocks of a culture you sympathise it, and that's coming from a non-Westerer.
It's wonderful to have these videos of Sir Roger in his pomp. I wonder what he would have said about what we have gone through in 2020-21. What a loss his untimely death was.
Not that great a loss judged by the absolute lack of argumentation seen here
I must commend the lady moderator for her beautiful posture and pleasant demeanour.
+Rentaghost okish I must commend you for your eloquent and discerning appreciation for the female form, as exemplifying the most supreme degree of condescending objectification
+Woody Phillips 'condescending objectification'
yeah, right.
Big Guy What do you call it?
Woody Phillips A complement, derp.
Big Guy Okay Big Guy.
How could you not continue watching after an introduction like that, lol.
Wish there were more like Eagleton. This would be a much more humane world. What a brilliant, beautiful human being he is!
That could only happen if we had all-White countries again.
I find Terry Eagleton to be so abstract in his thinking as to be unintelligible while I find Scruton to be much easier to understand. I say this as someone who is trained in the sciences and has a great love of the arts.
I remember trying to read him as a student expecting an irreverent takedown of the various Mr Bumbles, John Thorntons, Gerald Criches and so on in literary history. Instead I read a lot of as you said abstract preoccupations Along irrelevant lines of Marxist so called theory.
I may be off course here, but my understanding is that Eagleton is a Trotsykist. That allows him to write off all of the 20th century's various experiments in Marxism as travesties ("deformed workers' states" and the like) while claiming to represent the One True Marxism, which is the one that hasn't been tried yet, but if it were tried, would work perfectly. The problem with the One True Marxism is that only one person at any one time actually gets it. (Whatever happened to the Popular Front? - He's over there.)
jagara1 Couldn't agree more. Eagleton loves the sound of his own voice so much - he produces labyrinthine, confusing sentences whose meaning, when there is one is, is difficult to pin down. The guy is a turd.
Eagleton is an intellectual heavyweight though, I mean, I struggle with Shakespeare, but I realise it's a failing in me and stop short of calling him a cunt.
I agree, but I find him intelligible, but he is a Marxist, clinging to that ideology at a time when only those in a psychological state of denial are able to do so.
If you have no in-depth knowledge of the Marxian canon, please refrain from commenting. This is not a polemical argument, as is stated many times in the video. Both men make good points and some dialectical reasoning is agreed upon.
Y Griffiny awful excuse for not making any meaningful points. eagleton's marxist dogamtism is unbearably pompous and i hate the way he talks about the left
Two of my favourite intellectuals. Thank you for hosting and posting.
What a truly enjoyable time I spent listen to these two gentlemen this just goes to show you what can be done with two people with differing opinions having a discussion or if you will civilize argument without rancor I totally enjoyed this going to listen to do it again
Good conversations but TE, as much as I love you, should have given more of a chance to RS to speak. RIP RS. Thanks to IQ2.
34:49 "One reason why I'm a Marxist, quite apart from just enjoying annoying people, is that I don't like to do any work, I don't really like working." A surprisingly honest admission.
I could not agree more with the statement. That is why we developed all this technology. At 73 I cannot watch television so I study philosophy and economics and feed the birds and let others do the gardening. I entertain myself which seems to entertain others. I do not understand the work ethic when we develop technologies to eliminate most of what we call work. Seems illogical.
Most people don't like working, especially in capitalist countries. Labor work is not good in itself, it is something done in order to survive and to have a dignified lifestyle, but not because labor work it is dignified in itself.
ask anyone if they actually enjoy the work they do... not the social connections of a work team or the identity of a corporate uniform, but the work.
@@NeilKelly_is_angryexpat funny i like my work HATE the social connections
@@mau345 serial killer? ;)
In 1949 the family arrived in Tanganyika from Italy to join our father in the town of Arusha. As I could not attend Primary School until I could speak and understand some English, I used to help the local person in the garden, and started learning his language, till an Indian family with children came to live across the road. These, on seeing me looking at them, waved me over to play. Thus I started learning English from them, till one day my father spoke to me on what some British Officials had told him .... "European children must not play with Indian children" and that I should stop doing so. I was quite upset since I did not feel that I was different from them. I will not write of how this attitude was aimed against non-British. However I have to thank the event as it started applying a vaccine against discrimination towards others.
Which is more important here, the contrasting ideas, or the civility and respect in which those ideas are spoken?
I'm guessing that Scruton gets about 10% of the discussion time and still makes about 90% of the intelligent points. Eagleton is clever, for sure, but anybody who knows anything about Scruton knows that he is a polymath and a genius. And far sharper on his feet.
Clever is the word. Roger is wise.. There's a world of difference.
Oh bless the old windbag on the left he's doing his best! Rather a convincing display! Sorry, cracked me up.
We would be lost without the Sir Scuton's, Thomas Sowell's and Walter Williams. God bless them for we will all become brainwashed by the media and educational systems full of Marxist ideologists otherwise. It's through these people that most of us who have been brainwashed can gradually emerge from the fog.
I'm not convinced that Scruton was a genius. Having read a few of his books, I never get the impression of great leaps of association, and he never succeeded in creating a great work of art, which he probably would have, if he were indeed a genius. Saying all that, his contribution was unique and invaluable and far above the intellectual morass of his time, exhibited here quite well. Why was this? He actually saw through things with the benefit of wisdom. In the theme of the talk, such wisdom only comes through sincere reflection and an acceptance of cultural gifts; the man of the left is constitutionally incapable of such acceptance, and neither is he capable, without taking of the shackles of his dogmas, sincere reflection, for such reflection must always be mediated through the theory which gives his intellectual world its order and language.
Did I hear it correctly or did Terry really said that one of the reasons he is a marxist is because he doesn't like to work? Also, that lady at the end just HAD to ruin a productive and interesting debate with that comment, didnt she? -.-
What a great debate! Very high level!
Thanks for this polite and thoughtful exchange of ideas!
They have more in common than not. Terry Eagleton implicitly demonstrates Scruton's point about culture given he is only able to participate at this level of debate because he is culturally literate. I sense that both struggle with living in our time, which is like trying to breathe without oxygen.
The "high/low" culture dualism is unfortunate and gets in the way of clear thinking. Both would have benefitted from remembering Wittgenstein's notion of "intermediate cases".
This is how Left and Right should always debate
Yes it actually made me more aware of the history of their arguments from a philosophical point of view and I'm very greatful!
Holding on to what we love, peacefully with compassion to all, protecting freedom, think, be, speak.
Eagleton: The trouble with the Right..."
Scruton: "Oh, God..."
Eagleton: "You see, he even won't accept the word 'Right'..."
Scruton: "In the other sense, I do."
😂 (Minute 1:11:20)
Terry * in the middle of a monologue the length of a Bible.
Roger: I must say this is all a caricature of history.
Terry: You can come in in a moment, Roger.
Roger: It will be if this goes on for longer.
The disdain and prejudice shown toward Eagleton in the comments is incredibly undeserved. He is an eloquent writer and a penetrating thinker. He did very well in this discussuon
I am enjoying this a lot. Thanks.
Eagleton:"We're in danger of agreeing..."
Scruton: "Always happens when I talk, people say to me, 'I'm in danger of agreeing with you'."
😂 (@26:30)
As a conservative, I must admit that without the left my music collection would be significantly smaller. I will be more sympathic of the leftist position when it ceases to require me to reject my history, family, morality, traditions and God.
This is so good.. I think it is fair to say and everyone can agree that a culture in which people can disagree reasonably and with deference to one another is the way forward and I don't think that this is open to deconstruction.
Wonderful combination ! Both outstanding awesome!
"Let's assume that there is some truth in what you say"
~Roger Scruton
Terry Eagleton in conversation with himself.
He did seem to relish his own opinions.
"… as it were…"
Empty and vessel come to mind.
Yep.
*asks a normal question
Roger: a HUGE question
It’s a huge question to a huge brain.
'‘Given that there’s a long tradition of a certain kind of conservatism and a certain kind of leftism, both hitting, as it were, a mainstream, bourgeois, capitalist - whatever you’d like to call it - establishment, the question that then arises for me is this - and this is for me is a fundamental question in addressing people of your position - given that you have that sort of distaste for those activities [Thatcherist market stuff], given that you equally have a distaste for the coarsening and the cheapening of cultural life, you nevertheless remain firmly committed to the very economic and political system which in my view is largely responsible for that cheapening and diluting and sensationalising and vulgarising of culture.. that’s what I really don’t understand.''
I wish I understood a word
of it
Two very intelligent men having a civilized discussion.
two gentlemen
Polytechnics were the idea to supply people for work, while universities were more academic. The art colleges were non academic, though became more so with the qualification for the course, however high culture is about learning of the tradition of the past, but expression took a major role in the subject. Culture also moves with time, but when Roger Scruton mentioned supply, then it also implies work knowledge and much depends on education, but not high culture.
What a great chap Roger Scruton truly was ... and TE a very worthy companion on stage.
Might be my ability to understand thats lacking but I find Terry Eagleton is using the most complex way of explaining his beliefs, because he can't really explain them. He seems to struggle to put them into understandable terms so as to not have to defend them. However im clearly no academic.
I believe great minds find a way to put complex theories into terms simple minds can understand and relate to.
35:50 The notion that culture is neglected because our energies are directed to work and profit seems utterly bogus. What is an architect without builders and masons? What is an author without printers, distributors and booksellers? Nothing but effete dreamers. Our ability to create and spread cultural products is a result of work. Profit, wealth have enabled the commission of great works. Who would Louis Le Vau be without Louis XIV?
Can't agree more! Also, there exists this persistent distain for commerce or trade. It is the age old hatred of the merchant or tradesman, in contrast to the "gentleman" of leisure. Disgusting. What free people create through voluntary, peaceful exchange (which is what markets allow) should inspire awe and gratitude, rather than a penchant to command and control.
22:00 "There's been a somewhat callow cult of the outsider and exile and migrant". Good a place as any to jump in.
Scruton says belonging is important. I would agree it's an important component of the pursuit of happiness, and this because as a tribal species we are hard-wired to want to belong to bigger things, and can't really help it. However, while recognizing this we also have to acknowledge the dangers inherent in pandering to our tribal nature, as seen in the history of twentieth-century totalitarianisms (throw in reference to the Nuremberg defence, the Milgram experiment, etc). Today, we are surrounded by things we can belong to without cost (even the minimal cost of reflecting on what it is we are signing up to). For example, the Net is full of people happily signing up as footsoldiers in the Gender War, on the assumption that being one gender or t'other is a free gift (comes with the gonads, innit) and not something you have to work at (if you want to).
So while I get where Eagleton is coming from (assuming he's talking about the posers, those who talk the talk but have never walked the walk) I think it's dangerous to write off the rite of passage, i.e. the assumption and interiorization of exile as a place we all need to know, and keep coming back to, if we are to become more than cogs in a machine (Bonhoeffer's wholesome reserve). The night in the church, alone, listening to the owls and sleeping on your sword. One view of culture (the one I espouse, and suspect Scruton does too) is that it gives us access to the collected history and wisdom of people who slept on their swords, i.e. deliberately or accidentally found themselves cut adrift from belonging, and were forced to experience life as individuals, and were able to find something of value they could pass on to others in a comparable predicament.
Personally I think the idea that there is a crisis or a universal dumbing-down is greatly exaggerated: of course there's been some sacrifice of quality for quantity in higher education, but we've never had it so good in terms of adult literacy, widespread scientific knowledge, or easy access to cultural commodities, e.g. last weekend I was able to read both Richardson's Pamela and Fielding's charming riposte online for nothing, and before coming to this video I was listening to a magical concert rendition of Petroushka on YT, again for nothing. Beats growing up in the seventies listening to Deep Purple on Capital Radio, I'll tell ya that. I'm old enough that I can do the cantankerous nostalgic old git thing "back in my day, everyone was composing Latin verse at the age of three" as well as Scruton, but I've learned you have to back such things up with actual data, and I don't have any, or at least any that supports the view that we are about to witness the collapse of civilization. If you have some, feel free to jump in here.
2 respectable gents for sure. But Scruton is a different class of intellect and reason to Terry.
Scruton’s viewpoint accepts human nature and has practical relevance. Eagleton is a jargon machine
Is that the actress Rosamund Pike at 59:38? Sitting beside the chap with the microphone, wearing orange.
+Conor Lynch yes that chap is her husband I believe. Marxist babble does attract beautiful women apparently!
came here to say this
The girl at the end looks and sounds like Ash Sarkar.
@@kvonribbenburg that's because It is Ash Sarkar of Novara Media, an outlet and an individual I'm not particularly fond of and I say this as a left-winger.
@@Yourismouter What about Terry Eagleton?
Interesting how two intelligent people come across and how they effect your listening to and understanding of them. If these two gentlemen were travel guides to a location I had never visited before, I would sense I would experience and learn more, and know why, from Scruton than I would from Eagleton. It is about getting to the essence of a thing, and every time Scruton speaks, I listen so that I don’t miss the telling word or phrase that both encapsulates and clarifies the point he is making. His death is a very sad loss indeed, considering the butchery of culture that we are currently experiencing in the West and in the UK in particular, and the few voices of wisdom available to counter it.
scruton does well here. once again reminds you of the possibility that left orientated politics espoused by the likes of terry eagleton and his ilk is largely a less intelligent or common sensical, genuinely thoughtful mind set that clings to peoples words- and as is shown here marxism is the most overly milked. his doctrines do the real work for so called progressive ideologies. i.e. the huge but ultimtely necessary task of prescribing a solution for a society that embodies all the ideals they hold (justice, egalitarianism, equality, unity etc). looks more like intelectual laze and hifalutin big word spewing than a deep or complex insight more often than not
respect to both gentlemen
A lot of Terrie's argument was just a dismissive display of "whataboutism" rather than really engaging in disagreement.
if I see that word one. more. time...
@@thejdogcool That word? What about it? (Joke, I'm on your side).
Rosamund Pike in the audience at 59:40. Always strange to see famous people where you don’t expect to see them.
She's still gorgeous.
I adore his talk already.
Absolutely brilliant.
Does Eagleton have to end his sentences with "yes?"
Yes, yes?
hes a windbag
Eagleton seems to have an odd view of the conservative position as articulated by Scruton. It doesn't attempt to preserve things in aspic without change of challenge, but to make changes carefully and slowly with much thought always keeping in mind that those of us in the present making the changes know a great deal less than we think we do and should respect the fact that any cultural output that has survived a long time must have been thought worthwhile by a great many very intelligent people. The conservative position in this way in fundamentally one of humility before the accumulated genius of History.
Exactly. This is thoroughly if not deliberately misunderstood.
Well said. Your point about humility is spot-on.
There is any transcript to this debate?
High-powered brilliant consideration with both men.
Terry Eagleton is epic. He brilliantly evaluates concepts to their ends. He does reflect extreme intelligence and confidence of being able to find beauty in as well as critize accumulative wisdom. On the other hand, Scruton finds solace in positioning himself as a person who flourishes in high culture, and it seems that his seemingly intelligent capacity of sticking to a point is just a lack of critical thought.
Such a reductive and ridiculous comment about Sir Roger
PhD in pole dancing....try an Irish university. Dumbing down could happen under either system...Capitalism has given us some of our best cultural heritage.
Culture isn't taught, its every day life
Incredibly enlightening.
He is utterly brilliant in this debate. eagleton is actually very insightful and much of his observations are correct but, scrutons pragmatism, rational rebuttals and insistence of palliative remedies were utterly disarming and something, eagleton simply couldnt provide!
Rosamund Pike @ 1:00:00 !
DUDE! I noticed that too and I was looking for a comment about her. what a beautiful woman she is.
Haha i noticed the same thing and was amazed! Attending something like this makes her the most desirable in the world to me. Looks and brain
Love both of these guys.
‘They stopped you burning widows’
Obviously the worship of Scruton is strong in this comment section, however I really feel Eagleton did a great job of nailing the hypocrisy and lack of self-awarness that so many conservatives demonstrate starting at around the 1:11:44. "The trouble with the right is they have a lot of theories that just don't like calling them theories...what you carry in their bones without a need to argue"
Isn't that the standard, cliched marxist starting point anyway? Not very surprising if I may say so.
Finally, a reasonable comment. There is such an engrained appeal to nature fallacy in right wing philosophy its hard to see how it gets off the ground. Countless arbitrary cultural assumptions posing as transhistorical a priori.
@@lnb29 Well the vast majority of people these days who complain about Marxist thought haven't actually got a clue about what it really entails - certainly not first-hand anyway. So it probably is worth reiterating this point as it was made in clear, accessible language.
41:30 sir roger nails it!!!
What basic truths about human nature? According to Scruton's worldview we aren't even allowed to question human nature or society in case we accidentally undermine the precious cultural status quo.
Scruton actually messed up there. Marx believed in human nature. Scruton is right that Marx thought a political program couldn't improve it or even discover it, but wrong to say Marx thought humans would naturally evolve into it. Marx thought change would come through new technological and social forms that people create.
That refutation wouldn’t pass PHIL101
Terry Eagleton has a brash attitude. Can he give Sir Roger a moment to expand upon his comments? I wondered whether the woman in the middle was there for some reason because she wasn't a moderator. The Indian culture has neglected its poor and it took Mother Theresa to demonstrate a love of mankind despite one's birthrights to uphold their dignity. When Indians or others from around the world migrate to the West then they should adapt to the Western Culture.
Didn't we do an social experiment of marksism on territory of USSR, Chine and North Korea? I thought all the world saw how it worked and didn't try on own territory.
In our discordanat times, it is always reaffirming to see two intellectual men disagreeing civilly. Our politicians could learn much from them about good manners. Unlike most intellectuals, however, Scruton's comments rest firmly on a philosophical or moral premise rooted in human experience rather than than an ideology. He is one of the few voices defending the right to make moral judgments in a world that is naively non-judgmental in order to appear tolerant.
In other words, he recognizes and defends merit, translated into workable standards that guide conduct in human affairs. The socialist left, by contrast, wishes to deconstruct standards and even the meanings of words themselves to reduce all human achievement to the level of the lowest common denominator in the name of equality. In fact, civilization advances primarily on the work of extraordinary thinkers and artists, who defy any attempt to reduce excellence to democratic sameness. All men are endowed with equal rights by birth, but they are not endowed with equal abilities, and we should not be embarrassed to recognize it. Roger Scruton was one of those extraordinary minds. We will miss him.
I agree with your first two sentences, but then it gets a bit debatable. Surely you mean 'All people' in your penultimate sentence?
How do you define “equal abilities”? One’s ability is not innate, but comes through education which is highly related to one’s social class, family background, race, gender etc. The assumption that ability is born different sounds suspect. Even it is right, how do you guarantee those who have good ability get the same opportunities and access as those of the upper class?
A very good debate. Scruton gives a good account of himself, in the face of Eagleton's superior rhetoric. I found myself in sympathy to both accounts of culture, in particular.
I don't think you know what rhetoric is; both interlocuter's are plain speaking, here. Eagleton's opnions are just more detailed
pauljones651
I am still under the impression that neither of them are using rhetoric, unless you just mean skill in expressing what they are saying, but really that is different; in common usage, the word "rhetoric" implies artificiality in order to sway people with "fancy" phrasing and emotionally charged words rather than reason. Whatever benitocorleone was trying to say, if my criticism was unfounded only he can know. So you might be right or you might be wrong, but the usage is wrong just in case someone implies something with the word when what they intend is actually not true, if it accidentally happens that the word they use can have the more general meaning aswell it does not mean that that is what they were trying to express.
All you say is true. I am British, more particularly English. I think in this case the American English and British English standard and common usage are similar. But I think we have digressed, interesting though it may be. The only person who can tell me what he meant and indicate that my criticism was unfounded, at the moment, is benito, and by the looks of things, it does not seem that he is going to reply any time soon. This might be because my way of engaging was a little assertive, but I would rather say something assertively (and clearly) and be wrong, than sat it ambiguously. All criticism amounts to nothing more than a conjecture that someone is wrong, best to say it clearly.
Something which wasn't addressed in Eagleton's side of the conversation, yet is seriously vulnerable to criticism, is his insistence on dialectical language. Every time he uses the phrase "late stage capitalism" I started fidgeting in frustration. Likewise when he lamented the time-consuming amount of work still required of people in this "late stage of human history", or during the question time used the phrase "a stalled dialectic".
These kinds of historicist notions really are absurd, and once you dismantle them his suggested solutions seem to fade away. Following in the Leftist "tradition" of criticising effectively (whether rightly or wrongly) but then failing to deliver an alternative. This is the exact same vice seen in the deconstructionist Left.
Arranging one's priorities and activities on the basis of an entitlement to something never before seen on this earth is quite an astonishing thing to do when you think about it, but it is made doubly so when one claims that this entitlement is somehow dictated by the laws of the universe (another poor stand-in for God I might add) as inevitable. This really is just a way of fabricating legitimacy from nothing instead of making practical arguments.
It's actually the problem with the entire tradition of "utopian" socialism, or any other utopianism for that matter. Striding with unearned confidence towards a radical change has very little success rate when contrasted with making gradual improvements with humility and caution. This is the difference between revolutionaries and reformists too. You can quite clearly see how revolutionaries, armed with their criticisms and zealous optimism, always set about smashing up the institutions around them which conservatives may have preserved for hundreds of years, only to start fighting over the rubble when paradise fails to materialise. It's such an immensely high cost to pay that I find Leftists' casual bandying about of the idea offensive, even when its a Leftist as reasonable as Eagleton. When they go beyond that and start militating in favour of it I start to get the impression that I really am faced with something Mephistophelean.
I see what you mean, but we must encourage each other to try and create new economic systems that do work. We shouldn't forget the past mistakes, but we should envision SOME SYSTEM working well for everybody.
Great minds don’t fight, they talk.
So many youtube academics talking about who's intelligent and who isn't.
Academics who actually can talk & discuss with one another in a way which the general audience can comprehend (most of the time). Still looking for something like that on the continent...
Fun fact: a great admirer of Rudyard Kipling was... Bertolt Brecht
55:03 "When we have moved ourselves from the great medieval institutions of Paris, Bolognia, Oxford" and... SALAMANCA in Spain. Idk why but it seems to me English authors always pretend to underestimate the importance of anything historical coming from Spain.
The Black Legend, dude. You know that. Explicales a los demás lo que es eso...
@@BigDaveEnglishTeacher as you rightly point out that might be the reason. The problem is it is so deeply ingrained in the European collective mindset that it is difficult to fight.
As an extreme leftist I must say that Roger Scruton is one of those relatively rare conservatives who actually has something to say, and some of the time it's even worth listening to!
My list as it stands, each in their own idiom, is limited to him, Peter Hitchens, and G. K. Chesterton.
A huge portion of conservative outlets and writers are just transparently broadcasting the lowest propaganda, and there is simply no point in engaging with it.
These men are the exceptions which prove the rule.
Do any of the conservatives in this comments section have any more recommendations for right wing thinkers who actually have something worth hearing to say?
Thomas Sowell.
Michael Oakeshott is a pleasure to read and will change your mind about what a conservative perspective can be. Read the essay "A Place of Learning," if you liked the themes of this Eagleton/Scruton debate. And if you want an intellectual challenge, read the essay: "The Voice of Poetry in the Conversation of Mankind." Find me on Facebook and I'll send them to you.
@@acropolisnow9466 Sowell is excellent on many things and is an intelligent and thoughtful speaker. However, Sowell has more in common with Eagleton, on cultural issues, in that he thinks he knows what cultural values should be imposed, despite his defense of economic freedom. Scruton said more than once, during this debate, that he was not there to tell people what culture to adopt; he's more concerned with creating an environment of freedom where cultural values can be inherited, conserved, and built upon, rather than abandoned and replaced by intellectual or political authorities who think they know better. Eagleton mischaracterized Scruton's position as attempting to preserve culture in "amber," but this misses the nuance of the argument: that all successful evolution is the result of prior learning. Imposing change through power is neither evolution nor the consequence of learning. Eagleton's constant interruptions and insistence on putting words in Scruton's mouth prevented Scruton from clarifying his position.
Have you read what Hitchens has to say on GKC?
Thomas Sowell
Just finished watching the whole thing. I found Scruton to be clear, precise and coherent, Eagleton much less so and often losing himself in verbosity. If it can be said, it can be said clearly and simply. Otherwise the suspicion is that the speaker either has no clear idea of his own thoughts or else is unable to communicate them (Eagleton's case).
Agreed. Obfuscation passing for explication.
Mr. Scruton certainly seemed to grasp the direction in which that penultimate question was heading early on. The discussion had obviously been framed in the context of the Western canon, but the young woman was determined to make it about oppression and perceived Imperial chauvinism.
Very enjoyable conversation.
Roger Scruton is very clear explaining his thoughts but unfortunately I don't understand the other gentleman, he is not very clear in his explanations...
Identity politics and cancel culture at universities has proved Roger to have been right on and Terry lost in the bushes.
Not at all. You misunderstand Eagleton.
@@NosyFella in what way?
@@kurtwilkinsongardendesign8000 people have this totally unsubstantiated idea of what college campuses are like. I can tell you from firsthand experience and as a Marxist that they are nowhere close to the hotbeds of radicalism whatever cherrypicked cringe compilation from 2015 may have convinced you they are. couple this with the empty victimization narratives of the right that Scruton trots out, and yeah, Eagleton's position turns out the more tenable one
@@janosmarothy5409 when and why did you become a Marxist, I don't understand why some one believes in such a failed religion, where were you indoctrinated other than in an educational institution, subsidised by taxation?
@@kurtwilkinsongardendesign8000yeah you're proving my point for me. you've never actually been to college have you? or if you had no one would be the wiser, you least of all
Great discussion and debate between two great English thinkers. Chair should have steered Terry a bit to keep the contributions even and fair, that aside. Very good.
I would say Terry Eagleton didn't act with much grace. He is quite dominating, however, this shows the weaknesses of his arguments as he says very much and dominates to make few good points.
If you want to live a cheap life, you don't have to work hardly at all. It's because people want to have a high standard of living that they work a lot. You can live in an apartment with one car and have decent stuff for not a lot of work. That is a dramatic improvement over 150 years ago.
Terry Eagleton has a lovely velvety voice, the aural equivalent of a particularly fine port
I was thinking that too! Superb discussion.
You do a disservice to the value of a particularly fine port.
Interesting conversation. Was it Eagleton that said, the line between high and low culture is not the same as the line between the political left and right? Interesting.
Se você quer saber quem está ganhando um discussão basta ver (1) quem NÃO interrompe a fala da outra parte e (2) quem usa menos adjetivos e se concentra nos fatos.
Scruton has it at the crux, when he notes the post-relevant affirmation of life upon the deathbed of the arch cacophagist regurgitator Derrida.
Checkmate!
That was unquestionably the best of Sir Roger's quick-witted bon mots.